Save the lion?!!

[Fininho]

Heard it on Euronews.net
The african lion is on the verge of extinction in a country like Kenya.
Come on!
The lion is the most useless wild animal in the animal kingdom!
Who would waste his life trying to save the lion, really?!...
Isn't worldwide poverty a much more serious problem?

[karadan]

If anyone trying to sort out an issue called a halt to it because there are other larger (but completely unrelated) issues out there, nothing would get done. Anyway, what in your estimation is 'useless' about the Lion, or any other creature for that matter? Lions are a part of the biosphere and as such, should be protected along with other forms of life as much as possible. I shouldn't have to tell you why the biosphere and its ecological systems are so important to humanity.

A few thousand species of plant and animal became extinct this year alone. That's a fucking tragedy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This thread shows one use for lions.

[Fininho]

If anyone trying to sort out an issue called a halt to it because there are other larger (but completely unrelated) issues out there, nothing would get done. Anyway, what in your estimation is 'useless' about the Lion, or any other creature for that matter? Lions are a part of the biosphere and as such, should be protected along with other forms of life as much as possible. I shouldn't have to tell you why the biosphere and its ecological systems are so important to humanity.

A few thousand species of plant and animal became extinct this year alone. That's a fucking tragedy.

The term "tragedy" was an overstatement, in my opinion.
Species go because "goddess" Evolution says so.
Lions are useless because they are useless.
Besides, they are indeed disappearing from Africa, now.
But remember this: the entire biosphere is/has always been upside down.
I live in Africa [Johannesburg], for more than five decades.
Lions eat people in Kenya, as in here [Kruger National Park].
Lions are basically already extinct here [only protected in national parks].
Bottom line: lions can go and no ecology will suffer. My humble opinion.

[tunghaichuan]

Your post reinforces the mythology of our society. Most people in the world believe this mythology, religious and atheist alike. That is: the world is ours and we may do with it what we will. The world belongs to us but we do not belong to the world. There are very few people left who live in harmony with nature. Our mythology drives us to conquer nature

This isn't necessarily bad, but there are consequences. Overpopulation, pollution, depletion of natural resources, famine, genocide, etc.

Species do die out naturally, but in modern times it is human beings causing their demise. Now species die out not because of the natural evolutionary processes, but because animals are forced out of existence by human beings, and that is sad.

[Kylyssa]

Heard it on Euronews.net
The african lion is on the verge of extinction in a country like Kenya.
Come on!
The lion is the most useless wild animal in the animal kingdom!
Who would waste his life trying to save the lion, really?!...
Isn't worldwide poverty a much more serious problem?

This is an example of my pet peeve.  I am annoyed any time people say, why bother with one thing when there are worse things.  I think it is a very harmful outlook to believe that smaller wrongs should be ignored because larger ones exist.

I'm an anti-homelessness activist but I don't think that everyone who chooses to support other causes is wasting their time because homelessness is a worse problem.  I think that if you ignore small wrongs, you become hardened to wrongs in general.  

Why bother saving the lion?  Perhaps it's an attempt to slow the accelerated loss of biodiversity caused by human beings.  Maybe the lion isn't worth saving but what is?  How do we decide what is?  Who gets to decide what is worth saving?

Worldwide poverty is a worse problem but the same actions can't solve both issues.  Saying, "Hey, how about we kill fewer lions whenever it's practical?" to enough people may be enough to save the lion from extinction.  It takes nothing from the struggle to end poverty.  And it's not an "either/or" proposal.  People can decide to avoid killing off lions and work to end hunger and poverty.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The term "tragedy" was an overstatement, in my opinion.

Unless you're the person whose disease kills you because the plant or animal which naturally produces an antidote went extinct.

Lions are useless because they are useless.

No predator is useless.  All predators ensure the genetic health of the prey stock, if nothing else.  Other predators cull pestilential animals.  Another function is the prevention of overgrazing followed by desertification.
 

Bottom line: lions can go and no ecology will suffer. My humble opinion.

See above.

Your post reinforces the mythology of our society. Most people in the world believe this mythology, religious and atheist alike. That is: the world is ours and we may do with it what we will. The world belongs to us but we do not belong to the world.

The odd thing is, I don't see one word of his that advances this argument.  He's merely expressing apathy.

Species do die out naturally, but in modern times it is human beings causing their demise. Now species die out not because of the natural evolutionary processes, but because animals are forced out of existence by human beings, and that is sad.

It's certainly detrimental to the current biosphere, but it will either stop, or man will himself go extinct.  And once man goes extinct, the process will start anew.  It is only sad from our perspective; the Earth will shake us off as a dog scratches off fleas.

[Whitney]

Your post reinforces the mythology of our society. Most people in the world believe this mythology, religious and atheist alike. That is: the world is ours and we may do with it what we will. The world belongs to us but we do not belong to the world. There are very few people left who live in harmony with nature. Our mythology drives us to conquer nature

Sounds like someone has read Ishmael (if you haven't you should because you'd like it).

[tunghaichuan]

Your post reinforces the mythology of our society. Most people in the world believe this mythology, religious and atheist alike. That is: the world is ours and we may do with it what we will. The world belongs to us but we do not belong to the world. There are very few people left who live in harmony with nature. Our mythology drives us to conquer nature

Sounds like someone has read Ishmael (if you haven't you should because you'd like it).

Yes, that is where I picked up the idea of all modern people (except the few hunter/gatherer societies left) having the same mythology. I've read the other two in the series as well, "My Ishmael" and "The Story of B." I have to say, I liked  "The Story of B" the best.

[Whitney]

" I have to say, I liked  "The Story of B" the best.

Me too.

[The Magic Pudding]

There are the the old arguments.
Nature holds cures which could be forever lost.
No environment no economy.
Forests and oceans keep the atmosphere breathable.
People will pay to see animals and forests.
Mono cultures are vulnerable.

Those things are important, but for me they seem a justification offered to make the uncaring care.
I feel a diverse natural environment is a wonderful thing, I don't care if it is rational or not.
An ever increasing population crowding out the last wild things offers me no inspiration at all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are the the old arguments.
Nature holds cures which could be forever lost.
No environment no economy.
Forests and oceans keep the atmosphere breathable.
People will pay to see animals and forests.
Mono cultures are vulnerable.

Those things are important, but for me they seem a justification offered to make the uncaring care.
I feel a diverse natural environment is a wonderful thing, I don't care if it is rational or not.
An ever increasing population crowding out the last wild things offers me no inspiration at all.

As much as I agree with you on an emotional level, your argument will not sway technocrats bent on extracting every last dollar from the earth, air, and biota, and we both know that.

[The Magic Pudding]

As much as I agree with you on an emotional level, your argument will not sway technocrats bent on extracting every last dollar from the earth, air, and biota, and we both know that.

I don't know that I know that, but I don't think rational arguments should be abandoned.
Emotions are used as a powerful motivator for good or ill, if a koala is shown looking confused next to a felled tree it moves people.
It doesn't matter that koalas always look dopey and confused.

"Drilling for oil and gas and other mining activities are prohibited in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which encompasses approximately 99% of Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area".

There are economic arguments for this, but I don't think they motivate people as much as the beauty of the thing.
I pity the technocrat who suggested mining the reef, well I don't really pity them, but, no I wouldn't pity them.



Pictures like this and passionate argument saved the Franklin River from being drowned.
Reason was used, ancient cave paintings and tourism, but I think people with enough to eat can choose to save such a place just for its beauty.  Hungry people may want more though.

[Fininho]

There is a big difference between a lion and, say, an elephant or a rhino.
Lions kill and eat people in Kenya.
People get together with guns and go after the lions to kill them in revenge.
That's why most lions across Africa were decimated for several centuries.
By now, it is too late to save the lion in Africa.
Only enclosed lions - in national parks - will have a reasonable chance of survival.
You can be sentimental about lions, but it will not help.
I know the argument that it was man who invaded the lion's territory.
That is true, but it brought progress and civilisation to Africa and other continents.
Can you argue against this premise?
I don't think so.

[The Magic Pudding]

There is a big difference between a lion and, say, an elephant or a rhino.
Lions kill and eat people in Kenya.
People get together with guns and go after the lions to kill them in revenge.

I can understand that, I might do the same.

That's why most lions across Africa were decimated for several centuries.
By now, it is too late to save the lion in Africa.
Only enclosed lions - in national parks - will have a reasonable chance of survival.

Africa is big, three times as big as Australia, it should be able to have some big national parks, a lion in a large national park is pretty much a lion in the wild.  I imagine the migration patterns of prey would cause problems.

I know the argument that it was man who invaded the lion's territory.
That is true, but it brought progress and civilisation to Africa and other continents.
Can you argue against this premise?
I don't think so.

Progress towards what?
I think I can argue some peoples idea of civilisation includes making room for wildlife.
The USA protects dangerous animals, and they do kill people.
In Australia deadly snakes, great white sharks, and crocodiles across a huge coastline are protected.
Humanist principles sound good to me, but I don't see them as justifying ever increasing population at the expense of every other species on the planet.